Thomas B. Edsall in the Times on Dec. 5th:
"After 40 years of ascendancy, the G.O.P. has provided Democrats with an opening. Will the Democratic Party, often insufficiently authoritative and bold, manage risk better? Democrats arguably suffer from their own impaired judgment: utopian faith in the power of negotiation and compromise - naïve, perhaps, in a world where the threat of bloodshed is endemic."
That phrase "utopian faith in the power of negotation and compromise" made me do a double take. Is it utopian to believe in negotiation? As opposed to utopian faith in the power of violence and force?
Yes, the world is a dangerous place. But negotiation happens in Sri Lanka, in Israel, it's happening in Iraq. Negotiation and bloodshed are not mutually exclusive.
Maybe it's a sign of my idealism (and indoctrination) that this characterization took me aback. I still cannot see why negotiation is viewed as "naïve." It's those who think negotiation are compromise are synonymous with weakness who are being truly naïve. Those of us who believe in dialogue really do need a better public relations agency.